Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Are homeless people libertarians?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Are homeless people libertarians? (Read 410 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5028
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #10 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 9:05pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
Yes, living as a homeless street person is libertarian if that is what one wants to do.  So is living in the wilderness as a hermit or living on a desert island and proclaiming it to be a libertarian micronation.  Those are all ways an individual can be a libertarian.

The point of the libertarian movement is to bring about a libertarians system of government that actively protects freedom so that citizens don't have to escape it to be free.


I'd like to have a thought experiment with this, if I may.

Let's say there's already a libertarian nation, Freetonia. It's libertarian in every way. There is also a tyrannical nation, Tyrannia. Within Tyrannia there is a very tiny movement toward libertarianism. They do things like practicing civil (dis)obedience, and they actively engage in hate speech against the government, which is against the law in Tyrannia.

Freetonia, being libertarian, complete with the right to travel, invites these few people to live in Freetonia.

However, a lot of the Tyrannian libertarians don't have the money to buy things like protection of private courts. Their government has instituted anti-libertarian policies that kept them from becoming rich, they say. What is a lot of money to a Tyrannian is a pittance to an average Freetonian, because, of course, they are a wealthy and prosperous free market economy.

However, Freetonia has slightly more crime. People unprotected by private courts are fair game, and a rather mutualistic relationship between big crime and private courts has sprung up. Without crime, after all, you would have no reason to buy private court protection.

After all is said and done, the Tyrannian libertarians don't want to actually live in Freetonia. They want to engage in terrorism which they say is justified to force their government to go libertarian. They want aid from the Freetonians. Since it's a free market and everyone can choose, some people do give the aid. Tyrannia has threatened Freetonia for this, and as a result, Freetonian private courts have dropped some of their customers who have given the aid.

Some Freetonians have even decided to double down and move to Tyrannia for the purpose of blowing a great deal of it up. They're justified, they say; they're fighting tyranny. They're fighting aggression. They're fighting a government that uses force.

But who are they fighting for? Less than 1% of Tyrannia is libertarian, and those who are libertarian don't want to move. They enjoy the free protection of law for all. They like having police protect them from harm. They don't want to pay for private courts. They also like their free bread. What they hate are the population control systems that make welfare sustainable and the laws against anti-government hate speech. They want to say anything they like, because rights, but they want to keep their easy lives.

This is the question, particularly inspired by the bum scenario. What if people had even more, and much more viable options than that for living truly libertarian and chose to forgo them and cry for libertarianism to be implemented in their country, instead? What if they could just move to Freetonia and instead cried that no, they don't want to live in Freetonia, because it's a Hell-hole. Instead, America must simply implement all the policies of Freetonia.

My question is: Is the option enough, or must libertarianism be everywhere because it is objectively right?
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 783
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #11 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 9:30pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
I'd like to have a thought experiment with this, if I may.

Let's say there's already a libertarian nation, Freetonia. It's libertarian in every way. There is also a tyrannical nation, Tyrannia. Within Tyrannia there is a very tiny movement toward libertarianism. They do things like practicing civil (dis)obedience, and they actively engage in hate speech against the government, which is against the law in Tyrannia.
Interesting that you use the phrase "hate speech" in reference to opposing a tyrannical government.  Not saying it isn't.  People often hate a tyrannical government so I guess that would indeed be "hate speech."  In reality, we usually hear that phrase a justification of removing rights.
 

Quote:
Freetonia, being libertarian, complete with the right to travel, invites these few people to live in Freetonia.
Very wise.  Since a libertarians Freetonia would have no welfare system at all, there is no need to wonder whether immigrants are seeking to take advantage of benefits.

Quote:
However, a lot of the Tyrannian libertarians don't have the money to buy things like protection of private courts.
A libertarians Freetonia would have court fees, not private courts.  We have court fees in the U.S. but our government also takes money by force.

Quote:
Their government has instituted anti-libertarian policies that kept them from becoming rich, they say. What is a lot of money to a Tyrannian is a pittance to an average Freetonian, because, of course, they are a wealthy and prosperous free market economy.
As the U.S. once was, yes.

Quote:
However, Freetonia has slightly more crime. People unprotected by private courts are fair game, and a rather mutualistic relationship between big crime and private courts has sprung up. Without crime, after all, you would have no reason to buy private court protection.
That part of your idea of libertarianism is different from mine.  In my system, the  poor would get their day in court, thanks to a check off box that allows those who pay court costs to donate to provide jurisprudence for those less fortunate.

Quote:
After all is said and done, the Tyrannian libertarians don't want to actually live in Freetonia. They want to engage in terrorism which they say is justified to force their government to go libertarian.
Hm.  Objecting to a tyrannical government is "hate speech" and resisting a government that initiates force to keep them from being free is "terrorism?"  I suppose then that Thomas Jefferson was the most successful hate speecher and George Washington the most successful terrorist in history. 

Quote:
They want aid from the Freetonians. Since it's a free market and everyone can choose, some people do give the aid. Tyrannia has threatened Freetonia for this, and as a result, Freetonian private courts have dropped some of their customers who have given the aid.
Courts must be run by government, not private.  My idea was about financing courts through voluntary payments rather than theft.  My idea was not about privatizing them.  I'm afraid you've fallen for the strawmen that some prefer to debate rather than my actual ideas.

If they pick and choose who gets a day in court based on their political causes, Freetonia is far from libertarian.

Quote:
Some Freetonians have even decided to double down and move to Tyrannia for the purpose of blowing a great deal of it up. They're justified, they say; they're fighting tyranny. They're fighting aggression. They're fighting a government that uses force.
A libertarian government does not intervene in the struggles of other nations.  Libertarian individuals might, but I would never be one of them.

Quote:
But who are they fighting for? Less than 1% of Tyrannia is libertarian, and those who are libertarian don't want to move. They enjoy the free protection of law for all. They like having police protect them from harm. They don't want to pay for private courts. They also like their free bread.
Exactly why I don't advocate fighting on the behalf of others.  If they are foolish enough to think that bread can be "free" they are not ready for self-governance anyway.

Quote:
What they hate are the population control systems that make welfare sustainable and the laws against anti-government hate speech. They want to say anything they like, because rights, but they want to keep their easy lives.
Then you are right, they are not libertarians.

Quote:
This is the question, particularly inspired by the bum scenario. What if people had even more, and much more viable options than that for living truly libertarian and chose to forgo them and cry for libertarianism to be implemented in their country, instead? What if they could just move to Freetonia and instead cried that no, they don't want to live in Freetonia, because it's a Hell-hole. Instead, America must simply implement all the policies of Freetonia.

My question is: Is the option enough, or must libertarianism be everywhere because it is objectively right?
No, libertarianism need not be everywhere.  Nor is it ever one nations responsibility to force another to be libertarian.  One of the few things our left was ever right about was when it said in reference to our middle-eastern interventionism, "You can't force democracy on people that don't want it."  Events have shown how right they were about that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5028
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #12 - Nov 7th, 2017 at 10:34pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 9:30pm:
Interesting that you use the phrase "hate speech" in reference to opposing a tyrannical government.  Not saying it isn't.  People often hate a tyrannical government so I guess that would indeed be "hate speech."  In reality, we usually hear that phrase a justification of removing rights.


There are many reasons hate speech might be prohibited. In this scenario it's just government being protected instead of minorities. What I'm thinking of is a government who punishes people for verifyably fake news and sometimes does abuse this mechanism for political purposed because they are corrupt.

But here's the point of it: You can argue it both ways. Undeniably, freedom of speech for the press, even inclusive of printing biases or outright lies passed off as unbiased truth, has done damage. Some people will prefer the freedom and some people will prefer that this damage be checked, even if it means they can't say what they want. There are a third class of people, however: The hypocrites. They want the freedom and the benefit. I generally suspect people of being in this third class when they flee the results of their own policies and immigrate to other policies, then demand for their old policies to be implemented in their new home.
 
burnsred wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 9:30pm:
A libertarians Freetonia would have court fees, not private courts.  We have court fees in the U.S. but our government also takes money by force.

In my system, the  poor would get their day in court, thanks to a check off box that allows those who pay court costs to donate to provide jurisprudence for those less fortunate.

Courts must be run by government, not private.  My idea was about financing courts through voluntary payments rather than theft.  My idea was not about privatizing them.  I'm afraid you've fallen for the strawmen that some prefer to debate rather than my actual ideas.


Then you can't guarantee that every poor person would get their day. We have a very charitable world on general and it fails to provide for everyone. Charity can't and doesn't provide for everyone. It is unreasonable to assume it can. If, somehow, everyone was getting court protection off your system, the price would rise. That's basic supply and demand.

Here's a couple of quotes from Rothbard himself.

p. 269 "Law, Police, and the Courts"
Quote:
Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients’ friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue, rather than have a prohibitive curfew imposed on innocent—and paying—customers. A free market in police would reward efficient and courteous police protection to customers and penalize any falling off from this standard. No longer would there be the current disjunction between service and payment inherent in all government operations, a disjunction which means that police, like all other government agencies, acquire their revenue, not voluntarily and competitively from consumers, but from the taxpayers coercively.


p. 282 "Law, Police, and the Courts"
Quote:
It is now clear that there will have to be a legal code in the libertarian society. How? How can there be a legal code, a system of law without a government to promulgate it, an appointed system of judges, or a legislature to vote on statutes? To begin with, is a legal code consistent with libertarian principles?



Are such stable and consistent law codes possible, with only competing judges to develop and apply them, and without government or legislature? Not only are they possible, but over the years the best and most successful parts of our legal system were developed precisely in this manner.


But I prefer not to argue this since it wasn't the point. The point was a hypothetical that separates the actions of people who are willing to live in the system they advocate - like the founding fathers - and people who are not.

There probably isn't a real-life Freetonia. I was just curious if you sense the same smell test I do about people fleeing the results of bad policy and then demanding the bad policies be implemented in their new home.

I was especially curious if you would apply that smell test to your own philosophy.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22008
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #13 - Nov 8th, 2017 at 7:23am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 10:34pm:
There are many reasons hate speech might be prohibited.
Slander and liable and fraud are currently punishable under our laws.
Speech that you think is hateful, I might think is necessary. Bigoted people who hate others because of their color or national origin or religion or political opinions will be with us as long as people are tribal minded.

Your advocacy of various forms of tyrannical government and your hatred of individual liberty (especially economic freedom) place you well within the category of "hate" speakers that you seek to silence.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22008
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #14 - Nov 8th, 2017 at 7:29am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 10:34pm:
But I prefer not to argue this since it wasn't the point. The point was a hypothetical that separates the actions of people who are willing to live in the system they advocate - like the founding fathers - and people who are not.

Your understanding is still entirely lacking.

The system of political economy created by the U.S. Constitution allows people to choose the way they want to live.

Some communities have taken it upon themselves to welcome homeless people, others call them vagrants and jail them or drive them out of town. These community choices are also part of what is allowed by the U.S. Constitutional system.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 783
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #15 - Nov 8th, 2017 at 9:35am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 10:34pm:
There are many reasons hate speech might be prohibited. In this scenario it's just government being protected instead of minorities. What I'm thinking of is a government who punishes people for verifyably fake news and sometimes does abuse this mechanism for political purposed because they are corrupt.

But here's the point of it: You can argue it both ways. Undeniably, freedom of speech for the press, even inclusive of printing biases or outright lies passed off as unbiased truth, has done damage. Some people will prefer the freedom and some people will prefer that this damage be checked, even if it means they can't say what they want.
That argument was supposedly settled with the adoption of the first amendment.  Of course there is a baseness in human nature that makes us want to control others so governments almost immediately began dreaming up ways to control speech in spite of the first amendment. 

Quote:
There are a third class of people, however: The hypocrites. They want the freedom and the benefit. I generally suspect people of being in this third class when they flee the results of their own policies and immigrate to other policies, then demand for their old policies to be implemented in their new home.
Yes, there is a large percent of the population that would love to see speech restricted but never for their own ideas, only for the ideas of others.
 

Quote:
Then you can't guarantee that every poor person would get their day.
As opposed to our current system where the poorest plaintiff has an equal chance to prevail in a lawsuit against the most powerful of corporations?  Or in which a defendant in a petty drug case need not worry that the entire apparatus of the state is against him so he's better off pleading guilty even if he's not?  Compare a libertarian system to reality, not to an idealized version of statism that has never and can never exist.    The poor are always going to be screwed by government just like the middle class is.  Which is why we need to keep government as small and powerless as possible.

Quote:
We have a very charitable world on general and it fails to provide for everyone. Charity can't and doesn't provide for everyone. It is unreasonable to assume it can. If, somehow, everyone was getting court protection off your system, the price would rise. That's basic supply and demand.
Under our current system prices are completely out of control because the people making decisions are not the people paying for it.  In spite of the fact that courthouses are regularly staffed and visited by armed government officials, they have begun in recent years to hire private security for an extra layer of protection provided at the expense of taxpayers who are themselves so poorly served by police that they put bars on their windows, keep guns and dogs in the house and form neighborhood watches.  Neighborhood watches are a great idea, but many Americans have no time to participate in them because they must work overtime to keep up with taxes that pay for all-but-useless police security.

Quote:
Here's a couple of quotes from Rothbard himself.

p. 269 "Law, Police, and the Courts"

p. 282 "Law, Police, and the Courts"

But I prefer not to argue this since it wasn't the point. The point was a hypothetical that separates the actions of people who are willing to live in the system they advocate - like the founding fathers - and people who are not.
Your Rothbard quotes seem to support my ideas unless I'm missing something?

Quote:
There probably isn't a real-life Freetonia. I was just curious if you sense the same smell test I do about people fleeing the results of bad policy and then demanding the bad policies be implemented in their new home.
Yes, and this is a recent change I believe.  People that came from Cuba and Vietnam - crossing seas in leaky little boats - have shown no desire to establish socialism in the U.S.  They recognize that U.S. prosperity is the result of the U.S. semi-libertarians system.  It is only our own lefties who seem unclear about how America succeeds so much more than other countries.  Their answer seems to be some version of "we cheat."

Now we have some - definitely not all - immigrants who do want to bring to the U.S. the same failed system they claim to be escaping from.  We have the spectacle of "refugees" admitted under an emergency provision to save them from the horrors of their native lands taking vacations in those hellholes they claim to be escaping from.  Then demanding that many of the same policies that keep their native lands from succeeding be implemented here.  Which leads an analytical person to wonder if they were motivated more by a desire to spread their system than to escape it.


Quote:
I was especially curious if you would apply that smell test to your own philosophy.
Absolutely, I do it all the time.  But you won't hear me say, "I believe in thus-and-such but it really doesn't pass the smell test."  Because when I realize that a particular belief doesn't pass the smell test, I change that belief.  Sounds elementary but some on this board seem unable to do that.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4474
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #16 - Nov 8th, 2017 at 12:22pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Some Freetonians have even decided to double down and move to Tyrannia for the purpose of blowing a great deal of it up. They're justified, they say; they're fighting tyranny. They're fighting aggression. They're fighting a government that uses force.

And they are hypocrites for initiating force/agression.  They are NOT libertarians. They are LINOs

The Opposition wrote on Nov 7th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
My question is: Is the option enough, or must libertarianism be everywhere because it is objectively right?

My honest answer is libertarianism can only work in a society where 100% of the population is on board with it.  It can work in very small populations, but when authoritarians infiltrate, limitations on government's power are no longer in check, and heavy taxes will be imposed, cronyism happens. Individuals will be forced to surrender their wealth to the government, and they will go to extraordinary lengths to escape the tyranny.  Suddenly, they have become criminals for protecting their own wealth/property. 

What a mess!
« Last Edit: Nov 8th, 2017 at 1:24pm by SkyChief »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5050
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #17 - Nov 8th, 2017 at 12:23pm
Print Post  
Burnsred, you can go on forever manufacturing lies to make it look like your system is working better, but people immediately take your shit down when they complain about their rotten lot in life. Remember, that's why they're trying to be libertarians, in desperation because the major parties that are 99% supported by the people are rotten to the core and corrupt.

People who come to the US aren't trying to bring communism or socialism but those who come from Europe are probably trying to introduce socially responsible capitalism. If any are still coming from Europe.

Or from anywhere for that matter since your Trump took over.

You seriously think a Syrian would want to bring communism/socialism?

That which your country is lacking is a healthy mix of socialism, starting with universal health care. All the countries that have it are rated far superior to your for profit system.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 783
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #18 - Nov 8th, 2017 at 12:28pm
Print Post  
Don,  you completely misread my post.  I specified that people from Vietnam or Cuba do NOT want socialism in the U.S. because because that's what f'cked them up in the first place.

Yet people from Syria want to bring Islamic extremism and Sharia law even though they are supposed refugees from those things.  Actually, only a tiny minority want that, but our media gives them air time and ignores Muslim immigrants who only want to be good Americans.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 22008
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Are homeless people libertarians?
Reply #19 - Nov 8th, 2017 at 1:22pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Nov 8th, 2017 at 12:22pm:
My honest answer is libertarianism can only work in a society where 100% of the population is on board with it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "libertarianism" here Chief... Or what you mean by it "working".

A government that is constrained from interfering in people's lives except to protect their lives and liberty and property will allow them to live as free people. Isn't that the ideal of classical liberal/libertarian thinking? Certainly it can work even if advocates of tyranny and slavery and theft live in a country so governed, as long as they are punished for acting on their beliefs.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Are homeless people libertarians?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy